1. WAS PETITIDNER DENIED "FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS" BY STATE
AND FEDBRAL LOURTS RESOLUTION OF HIS CLAIMS DN AN
ERRONEOUS INDEPENDANT AND ADEQUATE STATE LAW GROUND?.

2. DID PETITIONER FAIRLY PRESENT " HIS STATE AND FEDERAL
CLAIMS TOO OVERCOME THE UNREASONABLE PROCEDURAL BARS?.

3. DOES THE U.S, LOURT OF APPEALS DENIAL OF HABEAS RELEF AND
"CDA", LONFLIET WITH THIS LOURTS DEUBION IN BALDWIN V.REESE,
541 U.S.272D04). ON PROPER PROEDURES I ALERTING STATE COUS TO FDERAL CLAM?.

4.IS IT OTTONAL TO O PMNER U VOLO
CLAIMS, WHEN RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON POOT CONVIETION RELIEF AS
FUNDAMENTAL ERRORS/DUE PROLESS VIOLATIONS?.

5.
WAS THE STATE OF FLA. PROCEDURAL BAR RULE ADEQUATE"OR"
APPLIED IN AN ARBITRARY AND UNPRECEDENTED FASHIDN ?.

Whether Petitioner was denied fundamental process in state and federal powers resolution of the claim